In many cases when people work together there is a need to share information during meetings. In the past, when information was available in a printed form, people would make hard copies of documents prior to a meeting and then distributes those copies at the beginning of a meeting or, sometimes, as a meeting progressed. One problem with hard copies was that meeting attendees or a meeting leader had to assess, prior to a meeting, which information would be relevant at the meeting. In many instances, during a meeting one or more attendees would realize that other content, other information, perhaps also in printed form, and not present at the meeting, would have added value or been handy as a reference. Thus, in many cases attendees would end up promising to deliver other information to the larger group at some other temporally disjointed time.
Another problem with printed paper information sharing is that the printed copies have to be obtained by attendees upon arriving for a meeting and then, during a meeting as attendees refer to different sheets of the printed materials, all attendees have to page back and forth within the materials to view referenced information. In addition to increasing overall sloppiness of a meeting space, the machinations associated with multiple attendees paging back and forth through printed materials had a disruptive effect on overall meeting flow.
Yet one other problem with printed paper information sharing is that, often, too few copies of paper documents would be available at a meeting and therefore two or more attendees would be forced to share their copies, again causing shuffling and sloppiness overall.
One other problem with paper based information sharing is that attendees may not be looking at the same materials all the time as some attendees look forward or backward in their copies or as some attendees simply get confused as to which page or information is currently being discussed or referenced.
One solution to address at least some of the shortcomings with paper-based content sharing has been to provide a projector in a conference space where digital content stored on a laptop or other personal portable computing device can be shared one item or image at a time. While more efficient, projector based solutions have their own drawbacks such as, for instance, requiring disruption when a second attendee takes over presenting content from a first attendee and needs to swap a cord linked to the projector from the first attendee's device to the second attendee's device, inability to use the projector system without a personal computing device, etc.
Perhaps the best prior commercially available solution to information and content sharing tasks within a conference space is a MediaScape system (hereinafter an “MS system”) designed and made commercially available by Steelcase, Inc., of Grand Rapids Mich., the present applicant. The MS system includes a plurality of flat panel display screens arranged at an end of an elongated table and a power/control assembly mounted in an opening in a system tabletop. The power/control assembly includes a storage compartment within and generally below the tabletop, a switcher device and a plurality of cable assemblies. Each cable assembly includes a cable and a control device that resembles a hockey puck (hereinafter “puck”) attached to a central portion of the cable where one end of the cable is linked to the switcher device and the other end of the cable includes a plug to be linked to a portable computing device. Here, in operation, an attendee pulls the plug end on one of the cables from a storage location in the storage compartment and links the plug to her computing device. Once a cable is linked to a personal portable computing device, the puck on the cable lights up with buttons for selecting one or a subset of the display screens for sharing the desktop (e.g., current and dynamic image) from the linked computing device on the selected display screen.
In addition to including the storage compartment and cable assemblies, the control assembly includes power receptacles so that attendees can plug their computing devices in to charge and receive power during a meeting. Thus, to have a data link and also link to power, an attendee has to link both a control cable and a power cable to her computing device.
In current versions of the MS system, control of the system display screens is completely egalitarian so that any linked attendee can take control of any of the system display screens at any time without requiring any permission or action by any other attendee. Thus, with first and second computing devices used by first and second attendees linked to first and second control cables and the first device desktop shared on a first system display screen, the second attendee may select a share button on her control puck to swap the desktop image from the second computing device for the desktop image from the first computing device without any permission from or action by the first attendee.
While the MS system is relatively efficient and is an improved solution for sharing content when compared to prior solutions, the MS system and other similar systems have several shortcomings. For example, having to link two cables to each portable computing device, one for data and one for power, results in a relatively cluttered arrangement, especially when several attendees link to several cable assemblies at the same time.
As another example, whenever a cable linked to a device like a mechanical device that is routinely moved as is the case with the control cable assemblies that include pucks in the MS system, substantial strain is often placed on the cable to device connections and the cables themselves which can result in cable and device damage or malfunction. To avoid cable damage, the MS system control cable assemblies have been designed to be extremely robust, including high gauge cables and beefed up connectors for connection of the cable to the switching device, and the cable to the puck device. While robust cable assemblies work well in most cases, the cable assemblies still become damaged from time to time. In addition, while robust cable assemblies are a viable solution, they increase system costs appreciably.
As one other example, if an MS cable assembly is damaged or malfunctions, it is not easy to replace the assembly as the connection to the switching device is typically hidden from easy access and requires a special knowledge of the system to be addressed. In many cases, because an MS system includes several (e.g., 4, 6, etc.) cable assemblies, if one or two cable assemblies malfunction, users simply use the other assemblies instead of getting the malfunctioning assemblies fixed. While the other cable assemblies work well independent of malfunctioning assemblies, the malfunctioning assemblies can be bothersome as other attendees that use the system may be unaware of malfunctioning assemblies or may be frustrated as they hunt for a working cable assembly.
As one other example, it is not easy to increase the number of cable assemblies in an MS system to expand connection capabilities to support additional attendees. In this regard, if a system is delivered with and programmed to support four cable assemblies, adding two additional assemblies is not easy requiring reconfiguration of mechanical system components as well as system programming modifications. Similarly, the puck devices are designed to control content sharing on a maximum of four common display screens. It is envisioned that in the near future, many more than four screens or emissive surface windows or fields will be available for content sharing.
As yet one other example, the current MS system only allows an attendee to share her instantaneous desktop image on the system display screens. This means that an attendee cannot use her personal computing device to view a second set of content while sharing a first content set via a common screen. Thus, if a first attendee has a first video presentation application and a second internet browser application open on her computer, she cannot share the video application while independently using the browser to look for some other content she wants to share with a group. Similarly, the attendee cannot share different content on different system display screens or in different sharing windows of fields on a single display screen at the same time so if the attendee above wanted to show the video application output on a first common screen and the browser application on a second common screen, the attendee could not do that with a current MS system.
As yet one other example, with the MS system there is no way to enhance a user's experience beyond simply sharing and observing shared content on the emissive surfaces presented by the system displays. Thus, the emissive surfaces are routinely wasted between content sharing sessions and even during sharing activities when no content is presented.
A more recent solution includes a wireless sharing system where a virtual sharing tool including display screen selection buttons is presented on a user's personal computer device that hovers over a user's desktop image. This solution deals at least in part with the cluttered cable problem associated with the MS system, although power cables are still necessary. This solution also deals with the control cable strain problem as the control cables are eliminated.
Wireless content sharing also has several problems, however. For example, in most wireless sharing cases there is no way to indicate who is currently controlling content. Additionally, wireless systems often require the installation of a dedicated application on content providers' devices. Thus, the system does not support users who do not have the application downloaded, and taking time before or during a meeting to download, install, and configure the necessary software may be disruptive and time consuming. Wireless systems also are not be as intuitive as the physical MS puck device that is dedicated to the MS system and that includes clearly defined buttons for selecting sharing options. The non-intuitive nature of the wireless systems is especially apparent when a new user enters an MS system space and has to go through an unfamiliar access process in order to get on screen sharing tools. Additionally, as with the MS system, there may be no ability to modify the number or configuration of inputs and outputs remotely or to fix the switcher device remotely.
Still further portable devices that do not include wireless capabilities may be incompatible with pure wireless systems. Moreover, users may have a perception, valid or not, that cable connections are more secure. Such a sentiment may even be reflected in a formal company policy prohibiting or otherwise restricting wireless sharing of at least some types of documents and information. In those cases, a wireless system is simply not an option.